A month later King Baldwin II. secured his liberation. In 1 129 he strengthened his throne by the marriage of his daughter, Melisende, to Foulque of Anjou, son of the notorious Bertrade, who had deserted her legitimate husband for the embrace of King Philip of France. This monarch had put away his wife Bertha for this new union. Thus was brought upon Philip the famous excommunication of the Pope. Two years later (August 13, 1 131) Baldwin II. died and was buried with Godfrey and Baldwin I. in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Foulque ascended the throne. His first work was to settle a dispute for the lordship of Antioch, which was accomplished only after bloodshed between brethren. Next he baffled the Greek emperor, John Comnenus, who attempted to gain for himself the kingdom of Jerusalem. Later he made alliance with the Mussulman Prince of Damascus and fought against Zenghi, Prince of Mosul. His queen, Melisende, by her rumored amours brought him additional perplexity. King Foulque died from an injury while hunting (November 13, 1143), leaving two children, Baldwin and Amalric.

Baldwin III succeeded his father at the age of thirteen, with Melisende as regent. Effeminacy not only marked the government, but infected the spirit of the people. The heroism of the founders of the kingdom seemed to die in the blood of their successors, or, if danger fired the ancient valor, it was without the light of discretion.

Young Baldwin III. inaugurated his reign by a foolish expedition to take Bozrah, which had been offered in surrender by its traitorous commandant. To accomplish this it was necessary to break a fair and useful alliance which the Christians had made with the Sultan of Damascus, the rightful lord of Bozrah. On reaching Bozrah, instead of the keys of the city, there was placed in the hands of the king an announcement from the wife of the treacherous governor that she herself would defend the walls. The perplexity of the king and his equally callow advisers was followed by an ignoble retreat. The enemy pursued not only with sword, but with fire. The wind, which seemed to the retreating army to be the breath of God's wrath, covered them with smoke and cinders, while the flames of the burning grass chased their fleeing feet. The Christians would have perished had not, say the chronicles, the wood of the True Cross, raised with prayer, changed the direction of the breeze and beaten back the pursuers.

At this time there was felt the need of an astute mind at the head of the kingdom. Christian progress had been arrested, and events of evil omen were thickening, especially tThe star of Zenghi, the ruler of Mosul, the father of Nourredin, and the forerunner of Saladin, had arisen.

References:

Archer (T. A.) and Others, The Crusades; The story of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, New York, 1902.

Baldric of Dol was born at Meun, near Orleans. He was] first a monk, and then became Abbot of Bourgueil in 1079, and in 1107 was appointed Archbishop of Dol in Brittany. His personal character was a complete contrast to that of his contemporary Guibert. I dwell with the greater pleasure upon it, as it forms an agreeable relief to that of Guibert, and also because Baldric represents a more common though, at that time, an oppressed type.

The ascetic zeal which pervaded the hierarchy of the eleventh century, was as hatefuLto the nature of Baldric as it was congenial to the Abbot of Nogent. Baldric saw no impediment to a Christian life in secular learning and art; the mortification of the senses was not to his mind ; sullen looks and strict fasts — in short, the whole pomp and ceremony of holy works — appeared to him not sufficient to fill up human life. He enjoyed the quiet of his cloister, the smiling garden, the clear running stream, the budding groves, while in his own room there were books, manuscripts, and all the appliances of learning. “ This is the spot,” writes he to a friend, “in which peace can be found .” There he wrote his verses ; nothing remarkable, but unpretending, and a labor of love . There also he applied himself to severer studies, and interchanged letters with friends of similar tastes. They carefully discussed their works, among others the History of the Crusades . They allowed the ecclesiastical contests to be settled elsewhere; it concerned them but little that a new hierarchy had conquered and remodelled the world ; not that they neglected their duties , but their true life lay in their books, in their gardens, and in their meadows. They were not always able to defend their peaceful existence from the incursion of a hostile element; their ideas were peculiar and too much opposed to the dominant party. Baldric writes to the Bishop of Ostia : “ My vessel sails only by stealth, for pirates of all sorts swarm around me ; they hem me in on every side, gnashing with their teeth because I do not quit my books, because I do not go about with eyes cast on the ground. Thus am I flagging in my work. May your hand protect me.

As bishop, he remained true to himself and to his nature. He was very religious, but gentle and mild. It is true this did not always succeed in his diocese, with his fierce Bretons . He was not fit to hold ecclesiastical power. He quitted Brittany, and sought a more peaceful asylum at Bee, Fecamp, and finally in England . Men like him would never have gained honours and triumphs for the hierarchy; but it is a pleasure to meet with a nature so pure, so cheerful, and so gentle, in times so full of energy, war, and austerity .

His history of the Crusades breathes the same spirit. He is exact and trustworthy in his use of the * Gesta he has not made many additions to its contents, but the views and opinions which he expresses are in keeping with his character. He does not withhold praise, even from the Turks: he omits the word “ faithless,” as applied to the Emperor Alexius, which constantly occurs in the "Gesta". He endeavours to excuse Count Stephen of Blois, who is . generally styled impudens et abominabilis , on the score of the general weakness of human nature. The additions he makes are mostly taken from oral testimony, and generally well selected. Of course it is only in few instances that he can be called an eye-witness; he undoubtedly is so where he mentions the effect caused by the beginning of the Crusades in France.

Baldric died before 1130, as his death was known to Pope Honorius II. His work on the Crusades seems to have been widely known. Ordericus Vitalis made use of it, and William of Tyre in many instances took it as the groundwork of his own history.

References:

"The Version of Baldric of Dol", in The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, 2nd ed., ed. Edward Peters (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998)

John (T.) and Henningsen (G.). Inquisition in Early Modern Europe: Studies on Sources and Methods (Papers from a conference in Denmark, 5-9 Sept. 1978). (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986).

Guibert of Nogent was bom in the year 1053, at Beauvais, of noble parents. His youth was passed in those times when the Roman Church began to bring the world under its dominion. Many circumstances concurred to subject Guibert altogether to these ecclesiastical influences, his mother was enthusiastically pious, and lived only in the mortification of the outward senses, and in the cultivation of the inward and spiritual perceptions. Before his birth his parents had vowed to devote their son to the service of the Church, and long before manhood he assumed the monk’s cowl at Mavigny. As he grew up, the lusts of the world awoke within him: he became a poet and learned music; he attempted imitations of Ovid and of Virgil’s Bucolics. But his teacher was warned in a vision, and the lad himself saw how he sinned against the rules of his Order. In this frame of mind he met with Anselm, Abbot of Bee, afterwards primate of the English Church, whose powerful influence at once directed him into the strict path of the Church. Gifted as Guibert was, he soon attained fame by his eloquence and learning, and at an early age became abbot of Nogent on the Seine. He remained there, respected by a large circle, and distinguished in politics and literature, until his death, in 1124.

The results of such a career are visible throughout his writings ; he was not without abilities, and for the times in which he lived, he was well read. The advantages of his birth and of his ecclesiastical dignity were of great service to him in writing a history of the Crusades. His acquaintances and connections extended over all France ; he was indebted for many valuable hints to Count Robert of Flanders ; Archbishop Manasses of Rheims allowed him to consult the letters of Anselm of Ripemont and he was himself present at the Council of Clermont. As a man of learning he affects a cultivated style and artistic form, but he only selected the Crusades as his subject, in order to make the ‘ Gesta Francorum,’ in his paraphrase, more agreeable to cultivated readers. It is true that he has succeeded very ill : the simple tone of his original is overwhelmed by his inflated and pompous style; he appears, conscious of his own high position, to disregard the opinion of others ; and frequently intimates that those who do not approve his manner of writing may seek some other. Valuable as his work is, in his literary character, full of pedantry and conceit, he is most offensive . The dignified servant of the Church, the man with whom everything has succeeded, the ecclesiastic who belongs to a ruling party, is too conscious of a proud position. He feels all his power when he attacks Fulcher of Chartres, as to his doubts with respect to the Holy Lance, and reproaches him with credulity and superstition as to other miracles . It was not in vain that Guibert had studied the science of demonology, that he had himself seen visions, and had everywhere found the doctrine of apparitions and wonders flourishing . Nor was it either doubt or enthusiasm that stirred Guibert to anger against Fulcher. The pride of superior learning, the consciousness of belonging to a dominant orthodox party, made him look down with contempt on his rival .

The close of his work is remarkable, hard as he had worked at the historical form of his book, he could not master his mass of learning. He had come to the end of the ‘ Gesta Francorum/ which was his guide, and he still had on hand a. variety of unused materials, too good to be lost to posterity. He determined to use them at all events, and strung fragment upon fragment, digression upon digression, important and useless matter in utter confusion, until his store of knowledge was exhausted. These stories extend as late as the middle of the reign of Baldwin L, and it is easy to conceive how they vary in value and credibility ; the most ordinary and the most unexpected matters are mixed together ; occasionally we find individual notices on points but little known, which throw new light on familiar subjects. Such are the details as to the government of Robert of Normandy in Laodicea, which Lappenberg has made use of, and which are important as correcting a widely spread statement by Albert of Aix, and the account of the Crusade of the year 1011. Of more special subjects we would also mention the death of Anselm of Ripemont and the end of Baldwin of Hennegau ; the former serves to supply deficiencies in the narratives of Raymond and Radulph, the latter is remarkable for its accurate agreement with the local history of Giselbert of Bergen.

The book was begun in the year 1108 or 1109, and certainly not finished till 1110. Guibert says that he is writing two years after the death of Manasses, Archbishop of Rheims, 70 which occurred on the 17th September, 1106, 71 and in another place he mentions the death of Bohemond, which is known to have taken place in the year 1110.

References:

Levine (R.), The Deeds of God through the Franks : A Translation of Guibert de Nogent's "Gesta Dei per Francos", Boydell & Brewer, 1997.

We know but little about Peter Tudebode life. Besly asserts that he was with the army of Poitou, commanded first by Hugo of Lusignan, and then by Gaston of Bearn. But there is no positive proof of this. Besly was led to this conclusion because Hugo was then Lord of Sivray. The book copies the ‘ Gesta Prancorum/ nearly word for word; many of the interpolations are mere episodes, and of little importance. He gives some details concerning the capture of Jerusalem, which may serve partly as an amplification, partly as a rectification of the ‘Gesta.’

Peter Tudebode's Source:

Besly, in the preface to Tudebod’ s History of Jerusalem,’ positively asserts that the Gesta Francorum,’ edited by Bongars as a genuine and authentic narrative, and frequently used as such by former writers, was nothing more than a plagiarism of the grossest kind, the anonymous author being entirely indebted to Tudebod for his facts, and thinks it his duty to expose such a wholesale plagiarism. Besly grounds this assertion chiefly upon three passages, — one in which Tudebod speaks of himself, and two wherein he mentions the death of his brothers. In these cases, Tudebod, he says, speaks as an eye-witness, and the anonymous author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum’ has carefully omitted all mention of these occurrences in his narrative. Besly’s views met with general concurrence, and have been followed by all subsequent historians of the Crusades .

I must confess that the reasons urged for this opinion appear to me thoroughly unsatisfactory, and that there is evidence of exactly the reverse. In the case in point, Tudebod narrates an unlucky event which occurred at the siege of Jerusalem ; “the author,” he adds, “Tudebod, a priest of Sivray, was present, and was an eye-witness.” The whole narrative, to which this statement is appended, is omitted in the ‘ Gesta Francorum/ and I can conceive nothing unlikely in the supposition that Tudebod, having got so far in his transcription of the * Gesta/ should have inserted in this place something he had himself witnessed. There is nothing to disprove that he and his brothers were present with the army, but there are many objections to looking upon his narrative as the original source of the "Gesta Francorum".

First of all, the anonymous author invariably speaks in the first person ; Tudebod, sometimes in the first, at other times in the third person.

Further, the anonymous author, as we shall presently see, was a knight. Tudebod was a priest. The first remains true to his character, whereas Tudebod introduces himself sometimes as a warrior, at others as a priest , which can easily be accounted for, if we consider him only as the secondary author.

In both works passages occur which are wanting in the other. Those which Tudebod alone has are anecdotes, traits of individual character, etc., which can be easily inserted or omitted, without interfering with the narrative. But it is not so in the other case. It clearly appears 'that Tudebod, from a mistaken endeavour at compression, has omitted passages essential to the meaning. His narrative of the conquest of Nicaea has faults inexcusable in an eye-witness, but easily understood as the errors of a transcriber. It is impossible not to see that the "Gesta Francorum" is the source from which he draws.

This leads me to the last and most important point, which Besly passes over lightly, but which appears to me conclusive. Tudebod makes use of Raymond’s work, as well as of the "Gesta" He has inserted several passages from the former, word for word, in his compilation. Had the author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum ’ followed Tudebod, it would be impossible that some passage from Raymond should not have slipped into his text. Precisely the one passage which is to be found both in Raymond and in the anonymous author of the * Gesta Erancorum/ makes the matter quite clear. Tudebod follows first the ‘ Gesta/ then Raymond, and then repeats the last sentences from the * Gesta ’ for a second time.

In the retinue of the Count of Toulouse and of the Bishop of Puy, were two Crusaders, the one a brave and worthy knight ; the other an ecclesiastic, uneducated, but well disposed. These two men were intimately bound together by friendship. The knight Pontius, Lord of Baladun, was desirous that the memory of so many great exploits should not perish for want of a chronicler. He was constantly pressing his friend to write down, in the quiet of his tent, the events that had occurred in the battle-field, to edify and stir up all the faithful, and especially their friend the Bishop of Vivars. The ecclesiastic Raymond was easily moved thereto : he wrote down day by day what he had seen, always with the help and encouragement of his friend, until Pontius found an honorable death in battle, before the castle of Arkas. Nevertheless he did not leave off the work begun in common with his friend. "My best friend", said he, "died in the Lord ; but love dieth not, and in love will I finish this work ; so help me God".

Raymond of Aguilers only received consecration as a priest on his way to the Holy Land , and then became one of the immediate personal followers of the Bishop of Puy and the Count of Toulouse. He was present at the discovery of the Holy Lance , carried this relic in the battle against Kerboga , and read the formulary at the ordeal by which Peter Bartholomew proved the identity of this instrument of the Passion . There is no doubt, therefore, as to the opportunities he had of observing ; and his capacity to judge events may be gathered from his works. Above all things, Raymond is simple and straight forward; he states, in the strongest and coarsest manner, what he thinks. We may have some doubt as to the correctness of his facts, but never as to ' the truth of the impression they make on him. Then he is Provencal to the backbone. He is not highly gifted, but thoroughly enthusiastic for the success of the undertaking, and, whenever there is an opportunity, for his countrymen and their leader. The manifestations of his character are not always of the pleasantest : they display an extravagant belief in miracles, and a fierce hatred of all who are opposed to him, and a vile way of connecting divine things with the lowest motives; when to this is added a very rude manner of expressing himself, it is obvious that in the course of his narrative there must be many things to shock the reader.

Por instance, he mentions as a glorious deed of the Count of Toulouse, that once when hard pressed by the Dalmatians, he caused the eyes of six of the prisoners to be tom out, and their noses, arms, and legs to be cut off, in order to inspire the rest with terror;“ At the taking of Antioch, he says, "Something pleasant and diverting occurred after their long tribulations. A troop of Turkish horse, more than three hundred in number, hard pressed by the Crusaders, were driven over a precipice; a pleasure to see, much as we regretted the loss of the horses .” It is true that in this war little regard was paid to humanity, but it would be difficult to find a second example of such excessive virulence.“ Thus he goes on, expressing delight and rapture with the same eagerness, and is completely carried away when a supernatural apparition manifests itself within his immediate circle. When the point of the Holy Lance projected above the earth, he says, “ Then I, Raymond the chaplain, sprang forward to kiss it .” The narratives of subsequent visions occupy about one-fourth of the whole book. In one word, his was a vigorous but vulgar nature, thrown by a great impulse into an extraordinary course. The book would soon excite disgust, were it not so guilelessly written, and did it not so thoroughly show the personal character of the man.

It is obvious that his judgment is only to be trusted in certain cases : he can be followed when once he is known. He may be depended upon as to matters of fact, which he narrates with the strictest accuracy. He is rich in detail, but not in anecdote. A few cases, unimportant in themselves, may be found in which we are forced to reject his statements ; on the other hand, he gives conclusive accounts of the most important events, and, in comparison with others, he must be looked upon as a guiding authority. On some points his narrative is essential to a right view of events, eg. the battle with Kilidje Arslan, before Nicaea — the siege of Antioch — and, above all, the quarrel between Bohemund and the Count of Toulouse. He agrees perfectly in the main points with the ‘ Gesta Francorum the discrepancies are few, and those only on special matters, quite independent of the general view of affairs.

Moreover, the two works are quite independent of each other, although, from their similarity, it has been supposed that they had a common origin , and that Raymond had only amplified the * Gesta.’ Each author tells the exact truth as far as he knew it, the one as to what occurred among the Normans, the other among the Provencals. The events were neither secret nor involved, and the similarity of the statements of the two authors is therefore by no means wonderful. Identity of expression, even in isolated passages, nowhere occurs ; in two places, pointed out by critics, it is only apparent : but at the end of the book, which has not come down to us in its perfect, form from Raymond himself, passages have been added from the ‘ Gesta ’ by a foreign hand.

The question is, when and by whom the interpolations were made. In all manuscripts which have hitherto been found, the passages in question invariably occur. It is still more important that Tudebod, who in this instance follows Raymond, found these words, and copied them ii^to his text, perhaps comparing them with the * Gesta .’ It is probable, indeed, that Raymond himself made the interpolations, that he felt the omission in his own narrative, and endeavoured to fill it up with the fragment from the ‘ Gesta.’ This circumstance is important, as affording the most convincing proof of the contemporaneous composition of the ‘ Gesta,’ even if the book did not contain sufficient internal evidence.

We have dwelt at some length on this apparently trifling circumstance, for various reasons. First, in order to establish the date of the ‘ Gesta,’ and next for those which relate to the subject itself. We hear on all sides that it is impossible to form an exact or authentic picture of the occurrences in Constantinople from the original authorities . This is mainly owing to the confusion that prevails in Albert’s narrative , which renders it impossible to combine the Latin authorities with the Alexiade, But if we can succeed in extracting from the eyewitnesses clear and unanimous statements, if we have the courage upon their authority to pronounce a strict judgment on Albert of Aix, the apparent discrepancies which exist in Anna Comnena’s w orks offer no further difficulties.

To sum up our judgment on the work of Raymond of Agiles, we should say it was full of ample and trustworthy details, the value of which is somewhat impaired by the passion and superstition of the otherwise veracious author. As a writer, Raymond, in spite of his violent, zealous, and superstitiou8 nature, takes a correct view of things, and with all the vulgarity of his mind he is a true representative of his time and of his country. He is genuine and outspoken, and no one who enters into his spirit can read his work without benefit.

References:
Raymond of Aguilers, in August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-witnesses and Participants, Princeton University Press, 1921.

Varney (A.), The Crusades: Campaign Sourcebook, Lake Geneva, 1994.

Peters (E.), The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, 2nd ed, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998.

We know but little about Peter Tudebode life. Besly asserts that he was with the army of Poitou, commanded first by Hugo of Lusignan, and then by Gaston of Bearn. But there is no positive proof of this. Besly was led to this conclusion because Hugo was then Lord of Sivray. The book copies the ‘ Gesta Prancorum/ nearly word for word; many of the interpolations are mere episodes, and of little importance. He gives some details concerning the capture of Jerusalem, which may serve partly as an amplification, partly as a rectification of the ‘Gesta.’

Peter Tudebode's Source:

Besly, in the preface to Tudebod’ s History of Jerusalem,’ positively asserts that the Gesta Francorum,’ edited by Bongars as a genuine and authentic narrative, and frequently used as such by former writers, was nothing more than a plagiarism of the grossest kind, the anonymous author being entirely indebted to Tudebod for his facts, and thinks it his duty to expose such a wholesale plagiarism. Besly grounds this assertion chiefly upon three passages, — one in which Tudebod speaks of himself, and two wherein he mentions the death of his brothers. In these cases, Tudebod, he says, speaks as an eye-witness, and the anonymous author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum’ has carefully omitted all mention of these occurrences in his narrative. Besly’s views met with general concurrence, and have been followed by all subsequent historians of the Crusades .

I must confess that the reasons urged for this opinion appear to me thoroughly unsatisfactory, and that there is evidence of exactly the reverse. In the case in point, Tudebod narrates an unlucky event which occurred at the siege of Jerusalem ; “the author,” he adds, “Tudebod, a priest of Sivray, was present, and was an eye-witness.” The whole narrative, to which this statement is appended, is omitted in the ‘ Gesta Francorum/ and I can conceive nothing unlikely in the supposition that Tudebod, having got so far in his transcription of the * Gesta/ should have inserted in this place something he had himself witnessed. There is nothing to disprove that he and his brothers were present with the army, but there are many objections to looking upon his narrative as the original source of the "Gesta Francorum".

First of all, the anonymous author invariably speaks in the first person ; Tudebod, sometimes in the first, at other times in the third person.

Further, the anonymous author, as we shall presently see, was a knight. Tudebod was a priest. The first remains true to his character, whereas Tudebod introduces himself sometimes as a warrior, at others as a priest , which can easily be accounted for, if we consider him only as the secondary author.

In both works passages occur which are wanting in the other. Those which Tudebod alone has are anecdotes, traits of individual character, etc., which can be easily inserted or omitted, without interfering with the narrative. But it is not so in the other case. It clearly appears 'that Tudebod, from a mistaken endeavour at compression, has omitted passages essential to the meaning. His narrative of the conquest of Nicaea has faults inexcusable in an eye-witness, but easily understood as the errors of a transcriber. It is impossible not to see that the "Gesta Francorum" is the source from which he draws.

This leads me to the last and most important point, which Besly passes over lightly, but which appears to me conclusive. Tudebod makes use of Raymond’s work, as well as of the "Gesta" He has inserted several passages from the former, word for word, in his compilation. Had the author of the ‘ Gesta Francorum ’ followed Tudebod, it would be impossible that some passage from Raymond should not have slipped into his text. Precisely the one passage which is to be found both in Raymond and in the anonymous author of the * Gesta Erancorum/ makes the matter quite clear. Tudebod follows first the ‘ Gesta/ then Raymond, and then repeats the last sentences from the * Gesta ’ for a second time.

While the West appropriated and developed the history of the Crusades in the manner we have described, a very remarkable man was engaged in Palestine with the praiseworthy object of giving to that kingdom a history of its past, and to Europe a " memorial for the future. He wrote with a strong feeling of patriotism, and at the same time under the sad impression that he could only find solace for present sorrow in the recollection of former happiness. The means at his disposal and his personal character fitted him for the task. The strong and persistent energy with which he mastered his materials enabled him to produce one of the greatest historical works of the Middle Ages.

William of Tyre was born in Palestine, but we have no information as to the place of his birth or his parentage. 1 He was educated in Europe, most probably at Paris ; but this surmise is merely conjectural ; for he himself (our sole authority) only states that he quitted Syria about the year 1163, in order to pursue his studies. Pour years afterwards we find him an archdeacon of the Church of Tyre, a friend of King Amalric, and tutor to the subsequent I King Baldwin IV. Even at that time the King employed him in the most important negotiations ; he went to Greece in 1168, to ratify .an offensive alliance with the Emperor Manuel against Egypt. Personal affairs carried him to Rome in 1169. On his return, at the death of. the Bishop of Bethlehem, he was made Chancellor of the kingdom, and in I the year 1174 Archbishop of Tyre. 2 Prom that time, he was naturally considered one of the most important members of the aristocracy of the land ; he took an active part in all negotiations of any importance, and his influence was felt by all ranks throughout the kingdom. The time and place of his death are involved in mystery ; the information on this point given by Hugo Plagons is unworthy of credit, and scarcely deserves mention.

The idea of writing his history had occurred to William of Tyre in the year 1170. Besides his own wish, there was an additional reason in the command of King Amalric, at whose desire he had already written a history of the Arabs since the time of Mahomet. For this latter work he employed Greek and Arabic materials, above all the history of Saith, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Amalric also busied himself in procuring him materials, and doubtless much that was valuable in this book has been lost. It cannot be asserted that it would have been free from error. The work of William of Tyre which we do possess precludes such a supposition. But that work shows a more complete and scientific knowledge of Saracen life than any” of his contemporaries or coreligionists possessed. It appears that in the year 1182 he had nearly completed the collection of his materials ; at all events, he then began to put them into form ; and he mentions in several passages, in the first and nineteenth books, the year we have given as the time when he wrote them. In 1184 he had completed twenty-two books, and brought down his narrative to the autumn of the preceding year. He was then in doubt whether to continue to portray the increasing miseries of those times, and determined to complete the history of the year 1184 in a twenty third book. But his purpose was not carried out, the work that has come down to us breaks off with the first chapter of that book.

The manner in which the author collected his materials appears to me similar to that already described. He wrote partly from information obtained from those who had still a vivid recollection of the past, partly from his own observation I and the honest reports of eye-witnesses. It is an important consideration, that the materials of his first fifteen books are still, for the most part, extant in their original sources. Albert of Aix, archbishop Baldrich, Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of I Agiles, and Chancellor Gauthier, supply him with ; the materials for the First Crusade, and the reigns of Godfrey, Baldwin I., and Baldwin of Burg. We shall see further on what changes he introduced ; but, in general, the accuracy of the copy spares me the trouble of pointing out individual instances. Before passing, however, to the consideration of his own original contributions, I will notice a few doubtful points.

Fulcher of Chartres a chaplain from Chartres, took the cross, in the year 1095, and joined the army of Count Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois, with which he marched through Apulia and Greece, and reached the camp before Nicaea in June, 1097. He remained with the bulk of the crusading army until its arrival in Meerasch, and went thence to Edessa with Count Baldwin, who then commenced his enterprise against that town. Up to this point his information is good, and frequently most important ; both on particular facts and on the general aspect of affairs. I allude more particularly to his account of the journey through Italy and Greece. He here shows the incorrectness of the impression that the armies had met together in the west of Europe, and that great masses of them had marched towards the East in regularly organized bodies. “ We wandered,” says Eulcher, “ as we could, in April, May, June, until October, wherever we could obtain supplies.” Adhemar had appointed Constantinople as the general rendezvous. Moreover Fulcher’s narrative of the march from Dorylaeum to Eikle is important, and very attractive,* from the great descriptive powers of the writer. His account of the occurrences in Edessa is conclusive, as he was the only eye-witness . It agrees in the main with that of Matthew Eretz of Edessa, who is the next best authority ; whereas both Albert of Aix and Guibert have followed quite different reports .

Unfortunately Fulcher breaks off here, and turns his attention to the main body of the crusading army, which then seemed the point of most interest. It is scarce credible that a contemporary, living at the distance of only a few days’ journey, should receive such absurdly false accounts. What reliance can be placed on these traditions, when even in a few score years they circulated in the distant West in such wild and uncertain forms ? The chronological sequence of events is lost ; the accuracy of the narrative disappears, and a blind enthusiasm finds vent in miraculous stories. Even here however some few passages are important : such as the account of Tancred’s conquest of Bethlehem, which checks a different report given by Albert of Aix ; Tancred’s plundering of the Temple, and the subsequent negotiations, which are supported by the testimony of Radulph against Albert.

Eulcher remained in Jerusalem, after a short absence, until the death of Godfrey of Bouillon at Edessa. He then accompanied Baldwin I. to Palestine, and remained there with the King in the same capacity as he had previously been with the Count. From this time his work is most important. Here, where all other eye-witnesses fail, his account is trustworthy, and often full. Let us attempt from this point to determine its general character.

It is obvious, in the first place, that the author by no means intended to write a history : the work is in reality a diary of his own life, with all the circumstances as they happened ; in which state Gui bert saw it in the year 1108 or 1110, in the West ; though it does in fact come down to 1127. He records what personally concerns himself, and devotes to it more or less space, according to his own individual taste. I will select the first example that occurs to me (to which many might be added); the passage in which he relates Baldwin’s taking possession of Jerusalem. He begins with a vivid description of the march from Edessa : “ Collegit exercitulum suum,” — two hundred knights and seven hundred infantry ; they go from city to city ; the Prince of Tripolis sends bread, wine, wild honey, and mutton to their tents ; at the same time he tells them of an ambush prepared for them near Berytus.

This they found terribly confirmed, for the narrow and wild passes were occupied by the Saracens. He then describes the battle, and how the Christians were at first unsuccessful. “ We were ill at ease,” says he ; “ we affected courage, but we feared death. I wished myself home again at Chartres or Orleans.” Luckily, however, they fought their way through, and Pulcher devotes many pages to a description of the happy manner in which they brought this adventure to a close. They subsequently reached Kaiphas, which then belonged to Tancred, who, as is well known, was one of the leaders of the opposition against’ Baldwin’s succession.

Fulcher enters into no explanation of the relations between the two princes. He only says shortly : “ We did not enter Kaiphas, because Tancred was then at enmity with us ; but,” he continues, “ Tancred being then absent, his people sold us bread and wine outside the walls, for they considered us as brothers, and were anxious to see us.” And a little further on : “ As we approached Jerusalem, the clergy and the laity came forth to meet the King in solemn procession ; likewise came the Greeks and the Syrians, with crosses and candles, who received him with joy and honour and loud shouts, and escorted him to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.” After this the narrative again becomes very meagre. “The Patriarch Dagobert was not present; he had been slandered to Baldwin, and bore him a grudge ; wherefore he sat apart on Mount Sion until his malice was forgiven.” Not one word explaining the cause and purport of this quarrel.

No one could suppose that the whole existence of the Christian' kingdom in the Bast was at that moment at stake; nor does he bestow more attention upon the King and his peculiar talent for government. He proceeds : “ We remained six days in Jerusalem, rested ourselves, and the King made his first arrangements; then we started again. Then follows a detailed and most lively journal .of his travels through the whole southern portion of the kingdom. Later we find a short narrative of the Second Crusade. He was in 1102 with the King during an expedition against Ascalon in Joppa. “There,” he says, “he met several knights who were waiting for a favourable wind, in order to return as speedily as possible to France. They had lost their horses the year before, together with all their baggage, during a march through Rumania.”

Fulcher’s work has been much used, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent writers. We have already mentioned that Guibert knew the book. Spite of his obligations to Fulcher, Guibert speaks contemptuously of him, without however bringing any specific charge against him. Bartholf de Nangiejo was more grateful : he compiled the ‘ Gesta Expugnantium Hierusalem,’ distinctly acknowledging his authority. 120 Many passages are taken from the * Gesta Francorum,’ not exactly word for word, but they betray their origin. Others, again, are evidently fabulous tales, having no pretence to authenticity. The work is in no way important.